I disagree with this take. Part of the problem is that the issue is complex, and it's very difficult/impossible to distinguish different ways the disease spreads in close contact As with most of epi, it depends!https://twitter.com/apoorva_nyc/status/1294766426062979074 …
-
-
Moreover, the advice doesn't really change! My infectious disease colleagues were saying ~in Feb~ that better ventilation wouldn't hurt Probably not going to be a defining characteristic in disease spread, might do almost nothing, but still worthwhile!
Show this thread -
But thing is, when you say "airborne" people don't imagine enclosed rooms and poor ventilation, they think shopping centres and car parks because that's what airborne traditionally means
Show this thread -
So I personally think this is more about physical scientists insisting that we all use very strict terminology, rather than the words that epi has been using for ages to describe these things
Show this thread -
And for the record, I find the attitude of physical scientists here very frustrating. It's not just a simple debate over semantics, saying the virus is airborne changes pretty much everything about the response to COVID-19!
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"It's not airbourne" provides a false sense of security.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.